Wikipedia Résumé

A precis of my work on the English Wikipedia, 2004-2017 (edit counts, articles by subject, and particularly notable articles)
personal, Wikipedia
2010-10-182016-07-13 finished certainty: log importance: 4

Over the more than decade I have worked on the , I have writ­ten a few things. Some might won­der what, exact­ly, but not want to dig through >95,1331 edits (on Eng­lish only). But even I don’t remem­ber every­thing I have done!


I’ve done my best to pull together a list of my major con­tri­bu­tions; I’ve based it on the results from the toolserver, specifi­cally 2 of Soxred’s tools which return lists of pages cre­ated and arti­cles most edited for a user:

  1. Most edited arti­cles:

  2. Arti­cles cre­at­ed:

Those lists are unre­li­able, how­ev­er. They are incom­plete; ‘cre­ated’ may be mis­lead­ing, as I make many redi­rects which may be turned into an actual arti­cle by a later user (for exam­ple, I am cred­ited with cre­at­ing the valu­able com­puter sci­ence arti­cle when all I did was redi­rect that name to the main arti­cle on ). The tool tries to fil­ter out redi­rects, but may be wrong. The most-edited list­ings are also mis­lead­ing in the sense that a great many edits on a page may sim­ply be undo­ing van­dal­ism; I do not list below because my dozens of edits there are just reverts and I do not feel reverts are a par­tic­u­larly valu­able ser­vice. Arti­cle writ­ing is. Some such arti­cles are listed where I have watched them for many years and feel that my super­vi­sion has risen to the level of a major con­tri­bu­tion. Con­verse­ly, some­times I have writ­ten arti­cles offline and then added them as sin­gle giant edits with a few fol­lowup edits to fix for­mat­ting errors; such arti­cles would not show up very highly on the most-edited list.

I am cer­tain that some of the fol­low­ing entries are erro­neous, and I have omit­ted some arti­cles that should be includ­ed. But I have done what I can. I am espe­cially proud of the high­lighted arti­cles such as the Medici bank, Brethren of Purity arti­cles, and the Fuji­wara no Teika arti­cle.

Subject areas



Functional programming


American history

Japanese history




Japanese art









Star Wars

  1. This is based on sum­ming total + deleted edits through Kate’s edit­coun­ter; this appar­ently leads to an under­es­ti­mate, since the live edit­count (2012-05-12) in Spe­cial:Pref­er­ences for User:G­w­ern is 42,400 edits ver­sus 38,806 accord­ing to Kate.↩︎

  2. My Teika arti­cle bears a unique dis­tinc­tion: it is the only Wikipedia work on which I have profited (as opposed to the 3 stalk­ers I earned at var­i­ous points), by sell­ing it to the New World Ency­clo­pe­dia (a ency­clo­pe­di­a).↩︎